Sure fuzz you should run it...
as long as they are willing participants in the tourney it should be fine...
who cares if somebody is screwed to provide the 'prize money'... it is fine...
as long as it is not US it is OK.
Sorry what's the problem? I didn't get it.
Really? You play the idiot now?
Read my post in your allocation thread.
This will kill the market.Can BTS that is locked up in a margin order be included in the snapshot? My gut tells me, probably not. Unless you were to take the initial BTS put up as collateral from each side of the trade?
If not, will BTS locked up in orders as collateral be excluded from the total supply the 35% allocation is honoring?
yes, as you described, market orders will not be included, the exactly definition would be the balance records in balance db (the balance you see in your wallet).
We are currently evaluating this, and after a few tests, we may honor the market orders (_ask_db, _bid_db, _short_odb, _collateral_db) if the tests showing that it's OK to do so.
Remember that this airdrop is not from your collateral, it is from reserved funds. The allocation to BTS is proportionally to the sum BTS of the total holders, regardless of what proposal.
Better English will be very much appreciated!!!!!
airdrop is not from your collateral, it is from reserved funds??????
The allocation to BTS is proportionally to the sum BTS of the total holders, regardless of what proposal.??????????????
?
I am not neither.Remember that this airdrop is not from your collateral, it is from reserved funds. The allocation to BTS is proportionally to the sum BTS of the total holders, regardless of what proposal.
Better English will be very much appreciated!!!!!
airdrop is not from your collateral, it is from reserved funds??????
The allocation to BTS is proportionally to the sum BTS of the total holders, regardless of what proposal.??????????????
?
I'm not native English speaker, sorry about that.
I am not neither.Remember that this airdrop is not from your collateral, it is from reserved funds. The allocation to BTS is proportionally to the sum BTS of the total holders, regardless of what proposal.
Better English will be very much appreciated!!!!!
airdrop is not from your collateral, it is from reserved funds??????
The allocation to BTS is proportionally to the sum BTS of the total holders, regardless of what proposal.??????????????
?
I'm not native English speaker, sorry about that.
Unfortunately, this does not allow us to make no sense!
One and only one question I have is:
Why do you believe that people that have the most trust and believe in the BTS system, and therefore have their stake not only in BTS, but more than that - in collateral - deserve no stake in your PLAY DAC?
We are currently evaluating this, and after a few tests, we may honor the market orders (_ask_db, _bid_db, _short_odb, _collateral_db) if the tests showing that it's OK to do so.
Great...for the hours ago... how should I know that.. anywhere posted or hinted that you even think of doing such a thing?One and only one question I have is:
Why do you believe that people that have the most trust and believe in the BTS system, and therefore have their stake not only in BTS, but more than that - in collateral - deserve no stake in your PLAY DAC?
First, we've already changed that decision hours ago, and pay extra effort to find out in which way PLAY should be allocated to collaterals. This is why we have this forum to communicate with each other, post proposals.
We are currently evaluating this, and after a few tests, we may honor the market orders (_ask_db, _bid_db, _short_odb, _collateral_db) if the tests showing that it's OK to do so.
Second, PLAY DAC is a fork of BitShares Toolkit, A independent DAC, there is no such consensus (Like AGS/PTS) that we MUST honor BTS, or collaterals put on its market or even BitUSDs created using collaterals.
This allocation to BTS is also a airdrop, not a part of consensus from BTS or Toolkit.
Great...for the hours ago... how should I know that.. anywhere posted or hinted that you even think of doing such a thing?One and only one question I have is:
Why do you believe that people that have the most trust and believe in the BTS system, and therefore have their stake not only in BTS, but more than that - in collateral - deserve no stake in your PLAY DAC?
First, we've already changed that decision hours ago, and pay extra effort to find out in which way PLAY should be allocated to collaterals. This is why we have this forum to communicate with each other, post proposals.
We are currently evaluating this, and after a few tests, we may honor the market orders (_ask_db, _bid_db, _short_odb, _collateral_db) if the tests showing that it's OK to do so.
Second, PLAY DAC is a fork of BitShares Toolkit, A independent DAC, there is no such consensus (Like AGS/PTS) that we MUST honor BTS, or collaterals put on its market or even BitUSDs created using collaterals.
This allocation to BTS is also a airdrop, not a part of consensus from BTS or Toolkit.
One and only one question I have is:
Why do you believe that people that have the most trust and believe in the BTS system, and therefore have their stake not only in BTS, but more than that - in collateral - deserve no stake in your PLAY DAC?
First, we've already changed that decision hours ago, and pay extra effort to find out in which way PLAY should be allocated to collaterals. This is why we have this forum to communicate with each other, post proposals.
We are currently evaluating this, and after a few tests, we may honor the market orders (_ask_db, _bid_db, _short_odb, _collateral_db) if the tests showing that it's OK to do so.
Second, PLAY DAC is a fork of BitShares Toolkit, A independent DAC, there is no such consensus (Like AGS/PTS) that we MUST honor BTS, or collaterals put on its market or even BitUSDs created using collaterals.
This allocation to BTS is also an airdrop, not a part of consensus from BTS or Toolkit.
One and only one question I have is:
Why do you believe that people that have the most trust and believe in the BTS system, and therefore have their stake not only in BTS, but more than that - in collateral - deserve no stake in your PLAY DAC?
the issue is not whether hackerfish has any obligation to BTS or not. The issue is a sharedrop on BTS may be detrimental to BTS. depending on the perceived value of PLAY, a snapshot will induce volatility onto the BTS market. Specifically, a large sell-off after the snapshot date.